Search public statutes and subordinate legislation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| doc_kind | No | ||
| state_code | No | ||
| instrumentType | No | Camel-case alias for instrument_type. | |
| instrument_type | No | Optional instrument type filter such as rules, regulations, notification, order, circular, or form. | |
| jurisdiction_scope | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / doc_kindAdded value: +{
+ "enum": [
+ "act",
+ "subordinate",
+ "draft"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / instrumentTypeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Camel-case alias for instrument_type.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / instrument_typeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional instrument type filter such as rules, regulations, notification, order, circular, or form.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'metadata', implying limited scope, but omits details like pagination, result format, or query behavior. Minimal transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (single sentence), which is efficient but lacks structure. It could be expanded with bullet points or key constraints without losing clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover common usage patterns, result behavior, or typical filters, making it hard for the agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 29%, yet the description adds zero parameter explanation. It does not clarify meaning or usage of any of the 7 parameters, leaving the agent to rely solely on the sparse schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Search' and the resource 'public statutes and subordinate legislation metadata'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'roop.public.judgments.search' by specifying the domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., judgments search, get_packet for statutes). Missing context for optimal invocation scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.